Madison— Gov. Scott Walker's campaign and a supposedly independent conservative group were "one and the same," prosecutors told the U.S. Supreme Court in a filing this week seeking to reopen a probe of the governor's campaign that state courts shut down.

Reminds me in many ways of the heart of this blog post from last year:[Updated from 11:36 p.m., 4/29/16] Do not forget that an official of the Koch brothers' funding and organizing arm Americans for Prosperity said about 15 senior rightists came to Wisconsin in 2007 somewhere "on the shores of Lake Michigan" and threw their support long-range behind Walker.A scenario referenced here several times after its disclosure at a March, 2014 conservative conference in Washington, DC and reported by Salon.com with the rest of the media's continuing silence:

“How did we do it in Wisconsin?” RNC Chair Reince Priebus asked Saturday morning. “The simplest way I can tell you is we had total and complete unity between the state party, quite frankly, Americans for Prosperity, the Tea Party groups, the Grandsons of Liberty. The [Glenn Beck-instigated] 9/12ers were involved. It was a total and complete agreement that nobody cared who got the credit, that everyone was going to run down the tracks together...”

Panelist Luke Hilgemann, the current Americans for Prosperity COO who formerly led the Koch-backed group’s Wisconsin efforts, told the crowd that the 2011 [Walker inaugural] victory “started back in 2007 on the shores of Lake Michigan,” at a meeting of fifteen intrepid activists who’d “had enough of government overreach,” including then-Milwaukee County Executive Scott Walker.

The filing also raises basic questions about the propriety of Justices DAvid Prosser and Michael Gableman ruling on cases tied to major donors which contributed to their election campaigns. Prosser announced last week his intention to resign with four years left on his current term. Walker will appoint a replacement Justice.The connections between donors and the Court are also raised in the some groups drafting the Court current policy on recusals, noted earlier, here.

I'd say the odds are quite strong SCOTUS takes this, because this case blew a major hole through what Citizens United allowed. At the very least, disclosure rules need to be clarified, because the WMC 4 completely went against what the judges wanted in CU.

Plus, John Doe is tailor-made for SCOTUS to define what limits there are on money-laundering and disclosure, along with the whole recusal issue

Nothing of the sort. Nothing new. Nothing that those paying attention haven't seen. Statistically, highly unlikely they take the test, but statistical analysis isn't how the SCOTUS will determine this.

The case has merit as it does address fundamental issues that underlie all election finance laws. The corruption of a state's highest court in plain sight for all to see and the in-your-face refusal to recuse despite clear and convincing evidence that judges have accepted excessive campaign donations from parties participating in cases before the court is a compelling reason for SCOTUS to take this on.

Likewise, going after a DA because he is doing his job and following the evidence also merits review by the high court.

I guess a 4-4 tie is better than a 5-4 Walker "win", but neither will serve justice. Our system is so highly corrupt that the legal system does not exist to provide justice, rather, it is used to harass and terrorize "little people" for the benefit of the powerful elite.

Don't look for the SCOTUS to provide any justice here. Walker is a creation of a dysfunctional and illegitimate sham democracy. There is plenty of blame to go around. However, if the in-state media was not entirely complicit with normalizing and enabling right-wing extremism, we would not be in this situation.

If the media, which hides behind the lie of "balance", did not prop up republican talking points -- even extremely dishonest ones like the attacks on the John Doe probe -- there might be a resolution of these issues at the ballot box.

Won't happen there, however, because proprietary vote counting systems that cannot be verified magically proclaim republicans to win each and every important race.

And what does the media have to say about the objective and verifiable fact that our elections are non-transparent, proprietary, and entirely unverifiable?

[crickets]

Don't expect SCOTUS to do anything that will hold Walker accountable. They are part of the problem and will not rescue us from the problems created by illegal campaign finance when a Koch stooge like Walker is at the center of the case.

Twitter

Facebook

What water, wetland protection is all about

"A little fill here and there may seem to be nothing to become excited about. But one fill, though comparatively inconsequential, may lead to another, and another, and before long a great body may be eaten away until it may no longer exist. Our navigable waters are a precious natural heritage, once gone, they disappear forever," wrote the Wisconsin Supreme Court in its 1960 opinion resolving Hixon v. PSC and buttressing The Public Trust Doctrine, Article IX of the Wisconsin State Constitution.

Banned in Milwaukee

The right, suburbanites say "No light rail for Milwaukee."

James Rowen's Bio

James Rowen, a writer and consultant, has worked for newspapers, and as the senior Mayoral staffer, in Madison and Milwaukee, WI. This blog began on 2/2/ 2007. Posts run also at various news sites, including The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's "Purple Wisconsin."